Run a light rail line from the airport to Irvington via Washington St. and from Broad Ripple to Beech Grove (through downtown and Fountain Square). Use Pan Am Plaza for the downtown terminal.

You may rarely be the first to the part, but if you can apply an innovation elsewhere with tremendous speed and effectiveness while doing so at a lower cost, that can be a pretty sustainable niche … so long as you organize your infrastructure and leadership to do just that.

In Detroit there will be a return of imagination for creation and exploring as there was with the pioneers of old in this region in Fur, Timber and Engineering. In the work place there is dignity for the people with work that encourages and develops the craftsman. This would be a change from the 20th century where both the white and blue collar worker lost their dignity in the workplace.

Jon, I think you are making a great point re:Chicago. Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Chicago was the place you came to see what the future of the city looked like. It was the ultimate industrial colossus. It was also the source of a lot of urban innovation.

That is certainly not the case today. Chicago doesn’t dominate any industry in the way it did the industrial age. Instead, it is very diversified. That has its advantages too, of course. Also, Chicago is not really an urban innovator. Rather, it has adopted the strategy of the “fast follower” where it takes something like bike lanes and deploys them at scale faster than a lot of other cities. It’s more execution driven.

Whether this is enough to sustain the city in the future, time will tell. I think it is a debate that clearly needs to happen, however.

What idea attracts like-minded people to Chicago from all over the world, year after year? As a lifelong Chicagoan, I wonder whether outsiders perceive anything of this sort? I always refer to Chicago as a place of great balance – the place to go in order to make it big in the world while still maintaining a high quality of life. But I also see
the “global city” competition on the horizon, and I wonder if this is enough to sustain us in competition with a rising Mumbai, Shanghai,etc. My hunch is that Paris and Silicon Valley will continue to attract people, due to the aforementioned mythology each embodies.

When I consider Chicago’s potential mythologies, one thing sticks out above all else – “A Great Urban Experiment.” Above all else, this seems like a reason people from anywhere might flock to Chicago. This idea has historical roots. Chicago was once a raw American frontier city where ambitious people came to perfect the ideal modern city. That spirit continues in the collective DNA. Long term, the city’s roots as a great business hub may be secondary to attracting the world’s greatest architects, urban planners, education experts, energy usage experts, transportation experts, etc. etc. In my opinion, it is most important for key people to think “Chicago” when they think “where should I go to help build the world’s highest quality 21st century city?” If that spirit continues, then Chicago will continue as a great transportation and global business hub.

Tokyo is dense, too – denser than Chicago, in fact. It has earthquakes, and so many subway tunnels that new subway lines have to be built 20-30 meters underground. Unlike New York and Chicago, it doesn’t have a regular street grid, which would enable easier construction under major streets.

The cost of a route-km of subway in Tokyo is $400-500 million. In New York, it’s $1.3-1.7 billion. Chicago, I believe, is spending $650 million per km on the Circle Line; the cost of els in Chicago is among the problems that make it one of the few world cities where government works even worse than in New York.

Question of the day – do Chicagoans care enough for such a thing, or are we content with a bus system that provides service E-W and N-S on nearly every major street? (Assuming stable CTA funding does not cut arrival frequencies, or eliminate routes entirely?)

I want the part of Milwaukee that is west of the Milwaukee River to act like a 21st Century city with new economy goals and an appreciation for quality of life. Unfortunately, much of this area acts like an old town with established political families and connections, with 20th century issues and fears. And I would like suburban Milwaukee to understand that they only thrive when the big city thrives, and that they can’t run away from problems in their little bubble.

As for Madison, you’re a big city now, not just a college town with a state capital. You need to understand that growth and new building is not always your enemy, and that crime is a legitimate issue. The ’60s and ’70s are over, and you need to stop listening to people who don’t understand that.